1759 metų „Ziwato“ „u“ ir „iu“ kamieno daiktavardžiai ir jų raida

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA LIII (2005), 91–99 1759 Ziwato u and their stem nouns and their development SONATA VAIČIAKAUSKIENĖ Vilniaus pedagoginis universitetas The article presents an analysis and a systematic description of the inflection of u and jų stem nouns in the 18th century Žemaitian Ziwatas. The evolution of these inflectional types and the possible causes of changes are examined with the aid of internal reconstruction and external comparison. The data thus obtained are compared with those of the nominal inflection system of the modern North Žemaitian dialect of Kretinga. 1. INTRODUCTION Current linguistic research undoubtedly allows us to assert that the 1759 Ziwatas is the finest monument of the eighteenth-century Northern Samogitian Kretinga 1dialect. The publication clearly and consistently presents the dialect’s phonological system, as well as its grammatical and morphological features, using the Polish orthography of the period. Būga (1958: 561–578), when analyzing phonetic vowel changes in Lithuanian dialects, already frequently relies on word forms recorded in the Ziwatas. Since the morphology of the Ziwatas is archaic, it would be appropriate to compare the noun declension paradigms of this written monument with those of the present-day Kretinga dialect, and to draw attention to differences in their development. Thus, the aim of this article is to describe the development of the endings of “u”- and “iu”-stem nouns in the Ziwatas and, above all, to compare them with the noun declension system of the present-day Northwestern Samogitian Kretinga dialect 2. Drawing on the methods of internal reconstruction and comparative analysis, the study explains historical processes in the development of the noun, as well as the causes and motivations for change. Apie Ziwato rašybą jau ne kartą rašyta (plačiau žr. Girdenis 1972: 173–191, 1980: 111–116, 2001: 292–326; Girdenis, Girdenienė 1997: 11–44; Girdenis, Skirmantas 1998: vii–xiv, 292–326; Vaičiakauskytė 2001: 119–133, 2002a: 4–7; 2002b: 223). 2. PARADIGMS OF “u”- AND “iu”-STEM NOUNS All “u”- and “iu”-stem nouns are masculine and have seven cases (nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, instrumental, locative, and voca- 1 On the fact that the Ziwatas was written in the coastal Samogitian dialect of the Kretinga area (Girdenis 1972: 173–191; Girdenis, Girdenienė 1997: 11–19; Girdenis, Skirmantas 1998: vii–xiv). 2 Hereafter in the text, this dialect is abbreviated as ŠVŽK. 92 SONATA VAIČIAKAUSKIENĖ (...), three numbers (singular, plural, and dual); u-stem nouns differ from u-stem nouns only in the softness of the stem-final consonant. TABLE 1. u STEM Singular Plural Nom. human 113 ~ žmùogos V. sunus 1214 ~ sū·rus Gen. human 211 ~ žmùogaus Gen. son 7218 ~ sū·nũ· / sū·nũ·n N. human 922 ~ žmùogų N. sons 28926 ~ su·nùms / su·nõms G. human 23 ~ žmùogo G. funus 5916 ~ sū·nìs Įn. human 412, human 3041, ~ žmũogòmì, žmũogò In. funumis 6317, ~ sū·nòmìs Vt. žmogų 1939, žmoguy 2142, ~ žmũogõu Loc. dangufy 8727, ~ dõngùsè Instr. žmogaw 2526 ~ žmũogãu S. sunus 14322 ~ sū·nus Dual G. du funu 11723 ~ dò sūnò TABLE 2. i̯u STEM Singular Plural N. karalus 113 ~ karã·lõs N. prietelẹy 23826 ~ prìetelệ G. karalaws 1824 ~ karãlãus G. karalu 11323 ~ karã·lù Gen. karaluy 362 ~ karãlòu N. of kings 3425 ~ karãlēms G. karalu 20512 ~ karã·lò G. of kings 3714 ~ karãlùs I. karalumi 19123, karalu 19015, ~ karã·lomì, karãlò I. razkažėys 272 ~ raškaz̃ė·s See Roju 23314, WILNIAw I25 ~ rùojū, vĩlnōu See razkažujfy31214 ~ raškažũ·sè See karalaw 1135 ~ karãlãu Š. of kings 1094 ~ karalė· 1759 M. ZIWATO U IR IŲ KAMIENAS 93 2.1. The singular nominative ending is -us, e.g.: Stojos, jogey wynas žmogus fenas, wardu Symeonas, Dwaſes [żwetos prypilditas 38₃₋₄; Eſį karalus židu yſzgymy̆mes Dowida garbingas, kurſay wardon Diewa karalaw pagyrtas ateyti 113₁₁₋₁₃. In the ŠVŽK dialect, the singular nominative has the ending -os ~ -us (žmùogos ~ žmogùs, karã.į̇s ~ karãlius). The change of the ending vowel u to o shows that the vowel in the ending was short before the change, cf. Latvian tìrgus ‘market’, Gothic sunus ‘son’, Sanskrit súnuś: see also Zinkevičius (1980: 232). The question arises as to how the singular nominative ending Ziwato -us was pronounced in the dialect? In the Ziwato, the vowel u also represents the Kretinga dialect’s o; for more on this, see Vaičiakauskytė (2002a: 13). 2.2. The singular genitive endings are as follows: -aws = [aus] and -aus, e.g.: Neftowiu apey daykta dwarna, ale apey dufzy žmogaws pakarna 44₂₂₋₂₃; Tas Majeftots karalaws yſzwŷfur paſzwęftas, nes nu Dwaſes S. Seney buwa yſzprowitas 30₁₃₋₁₄; Apey antgymyma Pona Jezusa Chriſtufa Karalaws Dangaws 24₁₅. In the comparative dialect, the singular genitive coincides with the form Ziwato (žmùogaus ~ žmogaus, karãliaus ~ karãliaus). The ending -aus < *-ōus, cf. Latvian tìrgus (-us < -aus), Gothic sunaus; for the origin of this ending, see also Mažiulis (1970: 263–272; Zinkevičius 1980: 232). 2.3. The singular dative ending is -ūy = [ou]³, e.g.: Dāgu mizermam žmoguy atwerſiu 157₆; Pagrīža, yr ant nuwgos žiemes ang watgi padieje Karaluy Dangaws 57₁₆₋₁₇. In the ŠVŽK dialect, the singular dative ending is -ou (žmùogou ~ žmogùo, karãļou ~ karãliuo) and coincides with the singular dative of the o-stem (cf. also Vaičiakauskytė 2002a: 14). Kalbininkai nesutaria dėl šio linksnio kilmės. Kai kurie iš jų – Endzelynas (1957: 123–124), Kazlauskas (1959: 22, 1968: 221), Zinkevičius (1980: 233) – mano, kad tai o kamieno fleksija, įsibrovusi į u kamieną. Mažiulis (1970: 272) linkęs galvoti, kad u kamieno galūnė *-ō yra ne paskolinta iš o kamieno, bet atsiradusi iš baltų *-au, reprezentuojančio iu kamieno formą. Logiškiausia būtų manyti, kad ši galūnė yra paimta iš o kamieno, juolab nei senuosiuose raštuose, nei tarmėse neaptikta reliktinės u kamieno galūnės (Zinkevičius 1966: 248). Be to, u linksniavimo tipas indoeuropiečių kalbose nebuvo gausus. Dėl to jis buvo veikiamas stipresnių linksniavimo tipų (Kazlauskas 1959: 19). Aptariamojo linksnio fleksija -ou kildintina iš *-ō (Girdenis 2001: 377); kaip ir o kamieno (plg. Vaičiakauskytė 2002a: 14). Čia veikiausiai apibendrintas „oksitoninis“ variantas. 2.4. The singular accusative ending is -u, e.g.: Teypo yr tu turiek už šietona tą žmogų; kurſay atrodoy mitaſty kuny[zku stuzba Diewa 88₁₇₋₁₉; Po anu eyta [zwečiavę Panna, Karalu Dangaws yr žiemes ant raku [awa neždama 39₆₋₈. In the Kretinga dialect, the ending of the case under discussion has -o instead of the expected -u (žmùogᵒ ~ žmogù, karã.įᵒ ~ karãliu). This ending should be derived from the archaic Lithuanian *-ūn. In the Samogitian dialect, unstressed endings *-ų and *-u have merged into the same -ọ (Vai- 3 Dėl šios galūnės atstatymo plačiau žr. Girdenis, Girdenienė (1997: 12). 94 | SONATA VAIČIAKAUSKIENĖ čiakauskytė 2002a: 18). Taigi morfemoje, kuri niekada nebūna kirčiuota, balsis u dėsningai paplatėja į o. Apparently, the ending of this case in Žiwato was already pronounced as it is in the present-day Kretinga dialect. This is proved by the fact that the singular nominative ending -us is also pronounced as -os (see also 2.1.). 2.5. The singular instrumental endings are -u and -umi, e.g.: -u and -umi, e.g.: <…> nes [mertis kaypo [z[a]zulietis fu žmogui eyta <…> 304₁–₂; Sytay wyfij y[zganity, yr par tawi Diewa žmogumi turem 290₂₆–₂₇; <…> tada tieja kalbi, jog a[ž efmi Karalus, nes a[ž Karalu yr užgymiaw <…> 192₂₄–₂₅; Pytotas kławle Jezula milawfi apey rozmaitus dayktus, o a[ža bliway apey tay ar efj karalumi židu 191₂₂–₂₃. In the comparative dialect, the singular instrumental ending is -o (žmũog˚ ~ žmogù, kàràl˚ ~ karaliù), which, like the singular dative, coincides with the o-stem ending. The analysis of Žiwato shows that in the mid-eighteenth century the Kretinga dialect still used, alongside the more common forms, a singular instrumental form with the ending -omi, composed of the stem-final element and the ending -mi. The vowel of the ending, which has not been lengthened in the dialect, indicates that the original ending was *-mĩ (Būga 1958: 566–567). The true ending should be -mĩ, cf. OCS сынъ. The Samogitian singular instrumental ending -mi is an innovation. Apparently, it was generalized on the basis of the plural instrumental *-mīs; cf. Mažiulis (1970: 210–213). Forms with -mi should be regarded as old u-stem singular instrumental forms. In some old written sources, u-stem adjectives also still have the ending -mi (in Daukša’s Postilėje: báisumi, brágumi; in Sirvydas’s writings: teysumi, sotumi) (Zinkevičius 1957: 23). The strong interaction between u- and o-stems in the Samogitian dialect apparently displaced the old instrumental inflection. The ending -mi is highly unproductive, since it was not used by nouns of the mixed declension either (especially i-stems) (for more detail, see Vaičiakauskytė 2002a: 54–55). Thus, the u-stem singular instrumental ending was generalized on the basis of the more productive masculine declension type. Žiwatas records the decline of the old instrumental form and the establishment of the new one, that is, the stem inflection. In later written sources, the latter instrumental forms become more frequent. This is particularly true of Samogitian texts (Kazlauskas 1959: 24). As the examples from the text under analysis show, in the mid-eighteenth century northern Samogitian speakers of the Kretinga dialect still more often used the old singular instrumental forms. 2.6. The singular locative endings are -u, -uy = [ou], -ąw = [ou]⁴, -uj, -ujy, e.g.: <…> a[ž negalu nie jokios kaltibes atraty tamy žmogų, diet kurios turietum nu myrty <…> 193₈–₁₀; Pytotas teypag tare: a[ž ne randu pryčinas [merte tamy žmoguy 214₁–₂; O dabar wie[t] fu pazwalenu wirefniu Ziamayty[fzka y[fztumocitas yr drukawotas Wilniq I₂₄–₂₅; O ką ylžryfį ant ziemes bus y[fzyftas yr Danguj 88₃–₄; <…> diet munes, link[minkietes yr dyawiakietes, nes zapwotas jufu ita Dangujy 63₂₃–₂₄. In the ŠVŽK dialect, the singular locative ending is -ou (tõrgõu ~ turgùo(je), rĩojõu ~ rōjuo(je)). This ending can be derived from *-ójēn (Girdenis 1962: 97; 2001: 377). ⁴ A singular locative form with this ending occurs only once in the text (see the example given). The ending -ou follows the nasal consonant n, so the vowel could apparently have been nasalized for this reason. 1759 M. ZIWATO u IR jų KAMIENAS | 95 Kalbininkai nesutaria dėl šio linksnio kilmės ir raidos. Kazlauskas (1959: 26–29, 1968. 156–159) mano, kad vietininkų postpozicija *-en čia yra prilipusi prie *turgō tipo formos. Pastarąją galima lyginti su s. indų vietininko forma sūnāu, kadangi dvibalsis *-ōu lietuvių kalboje galėjo virsti ō (aukštaičių uo). Taigi formos, prie kurios priaugo postpozicija *-en, senoji išvaizda galėjo būti *turgō. Vadinasi, senoji baltiškoji u kamieno vienaskaitos vietininko forma yra *turgō5. Taip atsirado inesyvo forma torgojė. Peršasi išvada, kad žemaičių vienaskaitos vietininko galūnė -ou < *-ō. Vėliau dėl morfologinio trumpėjimo žodžio gale nukrito -je. Greičiausiai žemaičių vienaskaitos vietininko galūnė *-ō yra senesnė nei aukštaičių turima -uje (Zinkevičius 1966: 248–249). The singular locative form šuny 15320, occurring once in the analyzed text, is apparently an accidental proofreading error, but may also be the result of a sporadic o stem. 2.7. The singular vocative ending is -aw = [au], e.g.: waykiele zidu [žakieles aliwa mede pyrmu neždamy, giedoje, yžganik mus karalaw židu 1134–5 In the comparative dialect, the singular vocative coincides with the vocative in the text of Ziwato (sū-nāu ~ sūnāu, karāl̄iau ~ karāliau). The ending -au < continues *-ōu, cf. Gothic sunau. This is a pure stem with the basic grade of the stem-final vowel (Zinkevičius 1980. 234). 2.8. The nominative plural ending of u-stem nouns is -us, while that of iu-stem nouns is -ey, e.g.: Užpewna Jawa pyktufius Tiewus Jekate, nes yr jus tu pačiu Sunus, kury Prarakus užmušytnie <...> 12113–15; Apałztalay, yr wyły prietele yžwaykščioje, nie kokie neturiu, kurfay man padietum 23825–27 In the present-day Kretinga dialect, the entire plural paradigm of the stems under discussion has generally shifted to the (i)o stem. The nominative plural endings are -a or -e (sūnā- ~ sūnai, karālē- ~ karāliai). The nominative plural inflection of the u stem remains intact in old Lithuanian language monuments from the 16th–17th centuries. Nominative plural forms of the u stem also survive in works written on the basis of 18th–19th-century Samogitian dialects (cf. Kazlauskas 1959: 32). This is also attested by the analyzed text of Ziwato (see the first example given). On the other hand, the old inflection of the u stem may have persisted in the plural paradigm of the word sūnus in Ziwato6 because of the word’s frequent use and its sacred character. Moreover, the author may have sought to avoid the digraph -aa in the Samogitian ending of this case. It should be remembered that the nominative plural ending of the u stem survives on the eastern outskirts of the Eastern Aukštaitian dialect area bordering the Anykščiai dialect, e.g., in Leliūnai (Rinkauskienė 1999: 23). Based on the foregoing, it can be argued that the o stem began encroaching on the u stem only relatively recently. However, in the same Ziwate, as the example given shows, iu-stem nouns are consistently used with the ending of the io stem; iu-stem nouns still have the old nominative plural form 5 Del šio linksnio kilmės ir raidos dar plg. Mažiulis (1970: 286–287). 5 No other nominative plural forms of u-stem nouns occur in the analyzed text, nor do plural dative, accusative, or instrumental forms, with the exception of the noun žmogus. However, the plural paradigm of this noun is not, in general, of the u stem. 96 | S O N A T A V A I Č I A K A U S K I E N Ė senuosiuose lietuvių kalbos paminkluose (Kazlauskas 1959: 31), bet ir XVI amžiaus raštuose dažnesnės io kamieno lytys. The disappearance of the ending -ūs in Samogitian (in general, the replacement of u-stem plural forms by the o stem) could easily be explained if we derived the North Samogitian ending -o from *-ū (acute or unstressed circumflex), e.g., the dual nominative and accusative ending (sūːn)-o < *(sūn)-ū (Girdenis 2000a. 334). In North Samogitian, -u became -o after the shortening of circumflex and open acute endings. The shortened nominative plural ending would have coincided with the nominative singular ending. It was probably for this reason that the u-stem ending -ūs displaced the productive o-stem ending -ai. Daugiskaitos vardininko galūnės -ūs kilmė iki šiol nėra aiški. Kazlauskas (1968: 224) mano, jog aptariamojo linksnio forma yra kilusi iš *-ųes, atsiradusio u kamieno daugiskaitos vardininke dėl ū kamieno įtakos. Zinkevičius (1980: 234) šią galūnę taip pat kildina iš *-ųes, kuri buvusi pasidaryta su kamiengaliu u dėl kitų linksnių įtakos, jeigu tik galūnė -ūs nėra analoginis darinys pagal kitų kamienų modelį. The nominative plural ending -ūs was probably introduced by analogy with other stems. In both adjective and noun paradigms, the principal cases are the nominative and accusative. The nominative plural -ūs of the nouns under discussion may likely have arisen by analogy: if gen. pl. *geràs: nom. pl. *gerós, then gen. pl. *sūnus: nom. pl. x, from which x = sūnūs. The plural vocative coincides with the nominative both in the text of Žiwato and in the present-day Kretinga area. 2.9. The genitive plural ending is -u or -ų, e.g.: Paſakikiet mąn, kurſay yſz tu ſunu dwiyu dare waly Tiewa ſawa 117₂₇–₂₈; Buwa taſay ſugrižymas yſz Egyptu apey ſzwęty Tryiu Karalu 44₆–₇ In the ŠVŽK dialect, the genitive plural form coincides with that attested in Žiwato (sūnuː ~ sūnų, tɔrgù ~ turgų, karà.ǐ ~ karalių). The (i)u-stem form coincides with the forms of the (i)o stem. Apparently, the stressed genitive ending of the u stem (as with other stems) was still pronounced with a nasal vowel, especially since forms with -n or -m are also used in many places in the present-day comparative dialect (Zinkevičius 1966. 77; Vaičiakauskytė 2002a: 18). 2.10. The plural dative ending of u stems is -ums, whereas that of iu stems is -ems, e.g.: Dwilekta karuna ira stypre riedima, kuri ira yſz akmenies brąngie, kure duda Diewas Sunums ſawa yr yſzrinktieſyms, kaypo paraſita ira Pſalmieſy 298₁₂–₁₄; Jeſus ſatdziawſis, apſyjoywyſys wyſam ſwietuy, karalems, yr madryjms Pagonu 34₂₅–₂₆. In the comparative dialect, the plural dative endings are those of the (i)o stem (sūnām ~ sūnām, karàlēm ~ karaliams). The archaic element of the u-stem, *-umus (*sūnumus), in which the stem-final -u- and the ending -mus are contained (cf. the dative plural forms of the o-stem; see Vaičiakauskytė 2002a: 19). The development of the ending of this case was probably as follows: *-umus → -oṃos → -oṃs. Kaip rodo senųjų raštų analizė (Kazlauskas 1959: 34–35), XVI–XVII amžiaus kai kuriuose raštuose u kamieno daugiskaitos naudininkas dar turi senąją u kamieno 7 Dėl šios galūnės kilmės ir raidos dar žr. Mažiulis (1970: 297–304). 1759 M. Ziwato u ir įu kamienas 97 inflection, although it must be said that the dative of the u stem occurs rarely in old Lithuanian-language monuments. Ziwatas shows that in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, apparently, plural dative forms of the u stem were still used by Samogitians. Although, as already mentioned, the old inflection of the u stem may have been preserved in the plural paradigm of the word sūnus in Ziwato because of the frequent use of this word. The plural dative ending of the įu stem is *-umus, but already in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Lithuanian-language monuments forms of this case from the įo stem predominate (Kazlauskas 1959: 34). In Ziwato, all nouns of the stem in question have plural dative forms of the įo stem. 2.11. The plural accusative ending is -us, e.g.: Tynay diet dyde Sopule, kuri pry appiawfima kietėje, kartey werkie, nes kumeli dydey jubteba yr czayma už kytus Surus jwieta turieje 32₂₆–₂₈; Yžleydufi Karalus jzwęčiawfe Maria Ju S. Juzupu, giwena anoy Jzopo pry prakarta ligi kieturiolektay dyinay <…> 37₁₄–₁₆. In the Kretinga dialect, the plural accusative coincides with the accusative in the text of Ziwato (sūnūs ~ sūnus, karaliūs ~ karalius). Linguists disagree about the origin of the form of the case under discussion; cf. Mažiulis (1970: 297), Kazlauskas (1968: 225). The plural accusative inflection of the u stem, -us < *-ūs, like the corresponding ending of the į-stem, -is < *-īs (Būga 1958: 568; Zinkevičius 1980: 235, 1966: 251). Thus, the ending *-ūs may also have arisen on the model of other stems. The presence of narrow -u < *-ū in the plural accusative form certainly supports the view that in Samogitian the circumflex endings must first have shortened, while the acute shortened later (Girdenis 2001: 172, 2000a: 405–406). 2.12. The plural instrumental ending of nouns with the u stem is -umis, whereas that of the įu stem is -eys = [e·s], e.g.: Palayminty pakaju daruntis, nes anyi Sunumis Diewa bus wadinty 63₁₆–₁₈; <…> kada anfay budamas Ponu y Jawa garby neje razkažieys, ale werkymays yr ubagjty 27₂–₃. The plural instrumental ending in the present-day ŠVŽK dialect coincides with that of the o stem (cf. Vaičiakauskytė 2002a: 19), (tōrgās ~ tūr̄gais, karālēs ~ karāliais). In Ziwato, as the examples show, the plural instrumental had still retained the old ending of the u stem, -umis, which consists of the stem-final element -u- and the old ending *-mīs. Forms of the įo stem have become universally established in the paradigm of nouns with the įu stem. 2.13. The plural inessive ending is -ufy = [u·sę], e.g.: Ponas Jezufas ant to atfake kalbiedamas: Btagasłowitas efi, Symonay Baryonay, nes ne kunas ne krawjes ne apjowie taw to, ale Tiewus muna, kurfay ira Dangufy 87₂₄–₂₇; Tada tuw ćiefu tabiawłey linkfmifes kunay nuwarginty, ne kaypo kury razkažiufy yfzkawoty 312₁₃–₁₅. Noteworthy is a plural inessive form found once in Ziwato with the ending -ufy (cf. plural inessive forms of the į-stem; see Vaičiakauskytė 2002a: 60), namely: <…> weyžiek jogiey antigyme ne ražkažiuju, aley ubagižkoy [myrdymcioy [tayneliey, ant plykos yr myktos ziemes terp badi[tiu <…> 25–26₂₈–₂. In the comparative dialect, the plural inessives of the (i)o- and (i)u-stems merged phonetically; cf.: *miškūs(e) ir *turgūs(e) (tūrgūs(e) ~ tūrgūs(e), vāišūs(e) ~ vaišiūs(e)) (Zinkevičius 1966: 251). Almost all northern Samogitians retain the unshortened plural inessive ending -ūse. Morphologically shortened forms with the ending -ūs are used only around Kretinga; see Aleksandravičius (1963: 104), Girdenis (2000a: 393, 2000b: 17). Perhaps the -ū- of the case under discussion could be derived from *ō 98 SONATA VAIČIAKAUSKIENĖ (cf. the plural locative forms of the o-stem, see Vaičiakauskytė 2002a: 21); see also Girdenis (2000b: 336). The once-used plural locative form with the ending -su is an archaic plural locative form (for more detail, see Vaičiakauskytė 2002b: 233). 2.14. The masculine accusative dual ending of nouns belonging to the stem under discussion is -u = [o], e.g.: <…> there was a man who had two sons; coming to the first, he said: my son, go work today in the vineyard, but he did not want to 11722–24 In the present-day comparative dialect, the accusative dual forms of nouns coincide with those attested in Ziwato (dò sū·nò ~ dù sūnu). The Lithuanian numerals dù ‘two’ and dvì ‘two’ derive from *dō, *dvḗ. Thus, the masculine accusative dual ending of nouns (as, incidentally, also the nominative ending) -o is shortened from *-ō⁸. 3. CONCLUSIONS 1. A consistent analysis of the 1759 Ziwato showed that in the mid-eighteenth century the non-productive nominal stems in the Kretinga dialect were shifting to productive stems. The u-stem paradigm of the present-day Kretinga dialect has changed since the mid-eighteenth century. 2. The paradigms of u- and (i)u-stem adjectives (before those of nouns) were affected by productive declension types; consequently, in certain cases, u-stem nouns in the text of Ziwato may still have sporadically retained the old plural nominative, dative, and instrumental endings⁹. The present-day Kretinga dialect has o-stem endings. 3. Ziwatas records the disappearance of the old u-stem singular instrumental form and the establishment of the new form, that is, the (i)o-stem form. 4. The shortened u-stem plural nominative ending must have coincided with the singular nominative ending. It was probably for this reason that the ending -ūs was displaced by the productive o-stem ending -ai. 5. Already by the mid-eighteenth century, (i)o-stem forms predominated throughout the plural paradigm of (i)u stems in the Kretinga dialect. LITERATŪRA ALEKSANDRAVIČIUS, J. 1963: Kretingos tarmės daiktavardžio kait ybos ypatybės ir galūnių raida. Kalbotyra 9, 101–117. BŪGA, K. 1958: Rinktiniai raštai 1. Sudarė Z. Zinkevičius. Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. ENDZELYNAS, J. 1957: Baltų kalbų garsai ir formos. Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. GIRDENIS, A. 1962: Tirkšlių tarmės morfologija ir žodžių daryba (rankraštis). GIRDENIS, A. 1972: Baltiškųjų *t̑j, *d̑j refleksai 1759 m. „Žyvate“. Baltistica 8 (2), 173–191. GIRDENIS, A. 1980: Dėl vieno prielinksnio formos XVIII a. šiaurės žemaičių kretingiškių tarmėje. Baltistica 16 (2), 111–116. 8 Dėl dviskaitos vardininko ir galininko galūnių kilmės dar žr. Mažiulis (1970: 181–182). 9 Tai galima teigti tik su išlyga (dar plg. 2.8, 2.10 ir 2.12). 1759 M. Ziwato u ir jų KAMIENAS | 99 Girdenis, A., Girdenienė, D. 1997: 1759 metų „Žiwato“ indeksas Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla Girdenis, A., Skirmantas, P. 1998: 1759 metų „Žiwatas“ (faksimilinis leidynys). Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla Girdenis, A. 2000a: Kalbotyros darbai 1. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Girdenis, A. 2000b: Kalbotyros darbai 2, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Girdenis, A. 2001: Kalbotyros darbai 3, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Kazlauskas, J. 1959: Daiktavardžių (i)u linksniavimo nykimas. Kalbotyra 1, 51–67. Kazlauskas, J. 1968: Lietuvių kalbos istorinė gramatika. Vilnius: Mintis. Mažiulis, V. 1970: Baltų ir kitų indoeuropiečių kalbų santykiai. Vilnius: Mintis. Rinkauskienė, R. 1999: Rytų aukštaičių uteniškių vardažodis: dabartinė padėtis ir istorinė raida (disertacija). Vilnius. Vaičiakauskytė, S. 2001. 1759 „Žiwato“ o, io, io kamienų daiktavardžiai ir jų raida. Kalbotyra 50 (1), 119–133. Vaičiakauskytė, S. 2002a: 1759 „Žiwato“ vardažodžio linksniavimo sistema (disertacija). Vilnius. Vaičiakauskytė, S. 2002b. 1759 „Žiwato“ i ir priebalsinio kamieno daiktavardžiai ir jų raida. Baltistica 36 (2), 223–236. Zinkevičius, Z. 1957: Lietuvių kalbos įvardžiuotinių būdvardžių istorijos bruožai. Vilnius Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. Zinkevičius, Z. 1966: Lietuvių dialektologija. Vilnius: Mokslas. Zinkevičius, Z. 1980: Lietuvių kalbos istorinė gramatika 1. Vilnius: Mokslas. Sonata Vaičiakauskienė Lietuvių kalbos katedra Vilniaus pedagoginis universitetas T. Ševčenkos g. 31, Vilnius